Tantruming Leftist Continues Spreading Misinformation on Trump's Visa Restriction Order
Misguidedly regurgitating twisted talking points and lashing out at any that offer an opposing viewpoint, the left's meltdown continues. Providing only the misconstrued assertions of corrupt elitists comprising the Democratic Party, media, and establishment bureaucrats, the failed cult of liberalism knows no shame or boundary in level of depravity its willing to sink to (ends always justify the means and anything is expendable...). While only the most uninformed of ideologues remain reliant on a biased media to think for them, liberals seem to be fearing the continued hemorrhaging of support, as one actually wrote an entire article about one of my pieces (although completely devoid of anything other than opinion... But I know, what an honor...).
Hypocritically disregarding the evidence I utilized to support the basis of my argument, while providing only sentiments and assertions to support their own, it is actually more in line with a previous commentary of mine, A Tribute to Liberal Arrogance in the 2016 Presidential Election. Substituting feeling for facts and the mindless mantra that the talking heads count on the uninformed masses to repeat, the condescension and divisiveness of such a failed philosophy knows no bounds.
For those that claim to be so enlightened, the lack of critical thought and refusal to acknowledge the right of contrasting stances only demonstrates a lack there of. Providing no evidence to support their arguments (unless arrogant assertions count...), it is downright horrifying the toxicity and fallacies that the left is currently promoting (especially educators). The writer even directly misquoted me, asserting that I used the phrase "stupid liberals," when that is nowhere to be found in my piece. I guess dishonesty is the route to pursue when reality cannot substantiate your claims, all of which is surprisingly a problem for a member of academia (the slanderous writer in this case).
But let's take a quick look at some of the ridiculousness in the article that was written about your's truly (even dubbing me "angry writer," because all us conservatives are "angry" and "bullies" after all...) and the pathetic excuse that passes these days for analysis. Here's a few highlights from the "teacher's" hit-piece:
- First off, Mr. "Teacher's" central argument that is trying to be made (and very poorly at that) is Trump's ban targeted Muslims. - Maybe those still repeating these falsifications should try reading the actual executive order in its entirety. Claiming it targets Muslims or the Islamic faith, without being able to provide any evidence that it is doing so is utterly unacceptable (and hypocritical), all the while using assertions and interpretations of intentions... Pretty easy to understand why students are no longer taught to critically think, when a portion of instructors outright refuse to do so.
- Several questions were included in their critique, so let me address each:
- "So was he (who will be known as Angry Writer throughout this article) correct?" - Well my readers think so, as does the traffic the piece continues to generate.
- "Did he know something that no one else did about the executive order?" - Nope. Pretty sure that I just read the executive order, found no traces or mention of any religious group, other than their right to not be discriminated against (a point that Mr. "Teacher" tries to twist to meat his liberal fantasy, but I'll get to that in a minute).
- "Or was he just trying in vain to defend the president and his controversial policies?" - I didn't realize the President's executive authority on immigration, which is permitted by the Constitution, and defending America's boarders was controversial. Remind me again, who the clueless ideologue is?
- "Instead, his article was a rant against ideological foes and was supported with “alternative facts” about the executive order’s purpose, data, and comparisons with the action of the previous president." - I provided Pew Research data and the executive order itself (see for yourself), which was immediately dismissed as "alternative facts." Must be nice to be able to pick and choose the facts, based strictly on which ones meet your political outlook. This tactic of discrediting by labeling things as, "fake news," and "alternate facts" is wearing thin. I didn't agree with Conway using such a term any more than I do with the leftist hysteria of dividing the truth into categories. I know, we should cut them some slack as they can't help seeing the world through the lens of separation, whether race, religion, economic status, sex, etc... This is just another tantrum because of their inability to accept liberalism has failed and was rejected, regardless of whatever echo chamber / bubble they occupy (California...).
- Citing this piece of the executive order, Mr. "Teacher" desperately tries to validate his points, but ultimately fails to even begin to offer any coherence:
This snippet from document is followed by this ludicrous bow to political correctness:
"Honor killings and violence against women are terms often denoted to be a part of Islam (at least in Western cultures). It comes from a stereotype that Muslims justify murdering female members of the family that may (supposedly) dishonor the family in some way -- albeit being raped or engaging in premarital sex. The practice is not limited or exclusive to Islamic societies (and it may be more of a cultural practice done outside of religious beliefs); however, it’s a common stereotype many non-Muslims believe." (REALLY?! Nothing more than a "stereotype.")
So the point of citing this particular section of the executive order is? Does Mr. "Teacher" promote these things or desire their inclusion in the US? I would hope not... I challenge anyone to disagree that these things are not present in the countries that Trump restricted. Referencing, overgeneralizing, and dismissing all of these as, "stereotype," is a blatant disregard of fact in the name of ideology and dangerously naive, just to fit the narrative.
- "Obama's ban "didn't discriminate on grounds of religion..." - Neither does Trump's, any more than the belief that repeating something enough will make it true. Only someone so entrenched in partisanship would continue to say so. Again, try reading the executive order, look at what's actually in it, and then form an opinion. Am I correct in assuming that this is what would be expected of the right, if it were Obama or Clinton?
- "The stat was true, but it actually had little to do with the ban." - Let's take a look at my stats from my original hub and let you be the judge (or read in its entirety):
- "In this case, Angry Writer tried unsuccessfully to use stats representing the total population of Muslims in the world as a way to prove that the executive order wasn’t a ban on Muslim refugees." - Why is it "unsuccessful?" Because Mr. Progressive "Teacher" disagrees with it? You will notice that no explanation is ever provided as to how or why, but rather a "surmise" about how they "felt." Anyone can disagree and lace their declaration with a few big words to look intelligent. But where's the facts to support their argument? Probably the same individuals that get their "news" from SNL and the Daily Show... We need to start holding the left accountable and at least offer push back, especially the growing number of radicals that are educating our children. To make accusations, proclamation, and smear another's work, without any supporting details other than an over-sized ego should be viewed as inept.
- "Angry Writer went off the rail near the end of the article... he shifted toward warning his audience about Sharia Law, but not really elaborating what it was and the dangers he felt it would bring…except to repeat the verbiage from the executive order." - Seeing as I was writing about the executive order, was that not the point? Furthermore, the place they reference in my original piece was included to show what's at stake and the left's complete disregard for the lives of Americans, who they see as secondary to having open boarders for terrorists to exploit. The subsequent reaction only seems to further solidify my point by Mr. "Teacher's" desire to let emotion dictate policy, instead of living in the real world with the rest of us.
While I could go on, you clearly get the point, thus ending my rant. While part of me considered just refraining from response, I decided that eight years of unchecked condescension was long enough. It's time to start calling these people out for their nonsense and countering the spread of the "fake news" that they are so concerned about.